Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Background: Before the pandemic, healthcare systems in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMIC) experienced a limited capacity to treat postoperative complications. It is uncertain whether the interference of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical systems has increased postoperative mortality. Methods: This before and after cohort study aimed to assess the pandemic’s impact on in-hospital postoperative mortality in a university COVID-19 reference hospital in southern Brazil. Data from patients who underwent surgery before (January 2018 to December 2019) the pandemic were compared to data from patients who underwent surgery during the pandemic (February to December 2020). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We developed Poisson regression models to examine the mortality risk of being operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: We assessed 15156 surgical patients, 12207 of whom underwent surgery before the pandemic and 2949 during the first year of the pandemic. Mortality rates were 2.5% (309/12207) in the pre-pandemic versus 7.2% (212/2949) in the pandemic. Of these, 25.8% (32/124) of patients with COVID-19 and 6.4% (80/2816) of patients without COVID-19 died. The proportion of urgent surgeries and ASA-PS III was higher in the pandemic group. After adjusting for mortality-related variables, the Relative Risk (RR) associated with undergoing surgery during the pandemic was 1.51 (95% C11.27 to 1.79). We excluded COVID-19-positive to perform a sensitivity analysis that confirmed the increased risk of undergoing surgery during the pandemic RR = 1.50 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.78). Conclusion: The substantial number of additional deaths, even amongst those without COVID-19 infection, suggests the pandemic disrupted the surgical service in an LMIC context. Fragile surgical systems may suffer more significant adverse impacts from external stressors such as a pandemic, and urging measures are needed to increase their performance and resilience.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Background: Anesthesiologists are often tasked with overseeing sedation in non-surgical settings. We aim to determine whether adding adjuvant sedatives to propofol affects the recovery times and complication rates after endoscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18) who received propofol while undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy (COL) at a large academic institution over a four-year period. Patients receiving propofol alone were compared against patients receiving propofol in combination with midazolam, fentanyl, ketamine, or dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was PACU length of stay, adjusted for age, sex, and ASA Score. Secondary outcomes included incidence of PACU postoperative nausea and vomiting, hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), bradycardia (HR < 60 bpm), and escalation of care (hospital admission), reported in adjusted odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. Results: Across the study period, 28,532 cases were included. Colonoscopies performed under propofol+fentanyl sedation were associated with significantly longer PACU LOS compared to propofol alone. Adjusted mean PACU LOS was significantly longer in patients receiving adjuvant fentanyl, compared to propofol alone (p < 0.01) and propofol + dexmedetomidine (p < 0.01). Patients receiving propofol alone exhibited a 9.4% incidence of bradycardia, 16.0% hypoxia, 0.89% PONV, and 0.40% hospitalization. Adjuvant fentanyl use was associated with higher odds of hypoxia across all procedure types (p < 0.05). Adjuvant dexmedetomidine was associated with higher rates of bradycardia, but lower rates of hypoxia, PONV, and hospitalization (p < 0.05). Conclusions: With the exception of fentanyl, combining propofol with other sedatives was not associated with longer recovery times. The incidence of complications differed significantly with the use of adjuvant fentanyl or dexmedetomidine.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Background: The ideal anesthetic agents for sedation, considering their respiratory and cardiovascular benefits and other perioperative or postoperative outcomes, are still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether ciprofol has advantages over propofol for sedation, particularly concerning respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes and other relevant perioperative measures. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ciprofol and propofol for sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse respiratory events. Secondary outcomes included incidences of injection pain, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia during surgery, perioperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative awakening time. A random-effects model was used for more than four studies; otherwise, we employed the random-effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Results: Intravenous ciprofol resulted in fewer adverse respiratory events than propofol (Risk Ratio [RR = 0.44]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.35–0.55], p < 0.001, I2 = 45%, low quality). It also showed a lower incidence of injection pain (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.08–0.17, p < 0.001, I2 = 36%, low quality), intraoperative hypotension (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52–0.77, p < 0.001, I2 = 58%, low quality), and nausea and vomiting than propofol (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.49–0.92; p = 0.01, I2 = 0%, moderate quality). However, no significant differences were observed for hypertension, bradycardia, and awakening time. Conclusions: Ciprofol may be more effective than propofol in minimizing perioperative respiratory adverse events and maintaining hemodynamic stability during sedation without prolonging recovery time.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Background: Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) effectively reduces pain scores for sternotomy in adults. However, evidence is insufficient to assert that the same result occurs in children. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ESPB in pediatric cardiac surgeries. Methods: Systematic Medline, Embase and Cochrane searches were conducted for studies that compared ESPB versus no block or sham block for pediatric cardiac surgery under sternotomy. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption for up to 48 hours. Statistical analyses were carried out with the use of RStudio version 1.2.1335. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q test and I2 statistics. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment complied with Cochrane recommendations. Results: Five studies, involving 328 patients (3 Randomized Controlled Trials [RCT], and 2 cohorts) were included. Of the 328 patients, 160 (48.7%) underwent ESPB. There were significant reductions in cumulative opioid consumption up to 48 hours after ESPB (SMD -0.68; 95% CI −1.13 – −0.23; p < 0.01). In the following outcomes ESPB failed to show superiority: postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.25–1.23; p = 0.54), fever (OR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.24–2.31; p = 0.58), length of intensive care unit stay in hours (MD −2.42; 95% CI −5.47–0.64; p < 0.01] and length of hospital stay in days (MD −0.87; 95% CI −2.69–0.96; p = 0.02). Only one cohort study had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: ESPB potentially reduces postoperative pain by significant reductions in cumulative opioid consumption up to 48 hours in pediatric cardiac surgery patients.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Until the beginning of the century, bleeding management was similar in elective surgeries or exsanguination scenarios: clotting tests were used to guide blood product orders and, while awaiting these results, an aggressive resuscitation with crystalloids was recommended. The high mortality rate in severe hemorrhages managed with this strategy endorsed the need for a special resuscitation plan. As a result, modifications were recommended to develop a new clinical approach to these patients, called “Damage Control Resuscitation”. This strategy includes four principles: damage control surgery, minimization of crystalloids, permissive hypotension and hemostatic resuscitation. The latter involves the use of antifibrinolytics, correction of preconditions of hemostasis (calcium, pH and temperature) and the early and rapid restoration of intravascular volume with blood products. To enable timely availability and transfusion of blood products, specific actions in different hospital areas need to be synchronized, which are usually organized through Massive Transfusion Protocols or, as they have recently been rebranded, Major Hemorrhage Protocols (MHPs). Although these bundles of actions represent a paradigm change, essential aspects such as their historical evolution, theoretical foundations, terminology and operational elements have yet to be well explored. Considering the wide application range of these tools (emergency departments, interventional radiology, operating rooms and military fields), it is essential to integrate all professionals involved with severe hemorrhage scenarios in the implementation of the aforementioned protocols, from conception to execution and management. This review paper addresses MHP aspects relevant to anesthesiologists, transfusion services and other areas involved with the care of patients with severe bleeding.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Objectives: Systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of the Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) in managing pain related to Herpes Zoster. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI for randomized trials comparing ESPB plus standard clinical treatment with clinical treatment alone. The population included patients with acute infection and those with Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN). The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included analgesic consumption. Mean Difference (MD) was used for continuous outcomes, and Risk Ratio (RR) for binary outcomes. Results: Seven trials with 362 patients were included. ESPB significantly reduced pain up to eight weeks (MD = −1.21; 95% CI −2.17 to −0.24; I2 = 89%). In the subgroup analysis of patients in the acute stage, the benefit seemed to extend with pain reduction lasting up to 12-weeks (MD = −1.49; 95% CI −2.61 to −0.37; I2 = 0%), and a reduction in the incidence of PHN (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.85; I2: 0%). In the PHN subgroup, pain reduction was notable only at four weeks (MD = −1.08; 95% CI −1.81 to −0.35; I2 = 86%). ESPB also reduced acetaminophen (MD = −0.6 g.day-1; 95% CI −1.05 to −0.14; I2 = 49%) and pregabalin consumption (−68.58 mg.day-1; 95% CI −127.18 to −9.97; I2 = 41%) over 12 weeks. Conclusion: ESPB seems to provide pain relief in Herpes Zoster patients, with a prolonged benefit in the acute stage. Also, ESPB reduced the need for analgesics over 12 weeks. More research is needed to corroborate this practice.

Resumo em Inglês:

Abstract Background: Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPC) are a significant source of increased morbidity and mortality after surgical procedures. Measures to enhance 30-day PPC risk stratification are an area of significant clinical interest, and integrating common preoperative investigations, such as echocardiography, may enhance quantitative risk prediction when combined with clinical score-based systems, particularly for high-risk populations. The authors hypothesized that Right Ventricular Systolic Pressure (RVSP) would significantly enhance the predictive capabilities of the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score in the prediction of 30-day PPC in a Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) study cohort. Methods: 277 patients with the diagnosis of PH, ARISCAT score, and echocardiography-derived RVSP within 12-months of surgical procedure were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the 59-variable 30-day Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality PPC composite. Secondary end-points included sub composites of Pneumonia (PNA), Respiratory Failure (RF), Pulmonary Aspiration (ASP) and thromboembolic Phenomenon (PE). Adjusted multivariable logistic regression models followed by Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves (ROC) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis were employed to assess the prediction of 30-day PPC. Results: Mean RVSP was 52.1 mmHg (±17.4). Overall PPC incidence was 29.9%, with RF (19.5%), PNA (12.3%), ASP (5.4%), and PE (3.6%) composites. Logistic regression showed no significant association between RVSP and PPC (Odds Ratio [OR = 1.01], p = 0.307). The ARISCAT score was associated with 30-day PPC risk (OR = 1.02, p = 0.037). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis revealed an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.555 for RVSP alone, 0.575 for the ARISCAT score, and 0.591 for the combination of RVSP+ARISCAT for the primary endpoint. Conclusion: RVSP demonstrated limited efficacy as a standalone predictor of 30-day PPC in patients with PH. Although integrating RVSP with ARISCAT scoring yielded marginal improvements in predictive accuracy, neither metric, independently or in combination, achieved adequate clinical significance for reliable risk stratification. These findings highlight a critical gap in the current preoperative risk assessment for PH-specific predictive tools. Future research should focus on alternative measures that better capture vulnerability to the hemodynamic complexities underscoring PPC in this high-risk population.